Kelly Rowland, Paulina Rubio In Talks To Join ‘X … 
Cannes: Latest Theft Affects China Film Group VP 
UPDATE: Yahoo Board OKs $1.1B Deal To Acquire Tumblr … 
‘Epic’ Toon Begins $14.5M Overseas Rollout 
Cannes: Sony Classics Wins Stateside Rights To Asghar … 
‘Fast & Furious 6′ Breaks Records In … 
Specialty Box Office: ‘Frances Ha’ Triumphs As … 
‘Saturday Night Live’ Season Finale Posts … 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $164.5M Global: Lower … 
Cannes: Backup Media, Memento Bring Heat To Fest Helmer Jim … 
Cannes: Sundance Selects Acquires Dardenne Brothers’ … 
Cannes: Wrekin Hill Acquires U.S. On Gabriele … 
Bill Hader’s ‘SNL’ Stefon Farewell: Video 
Cannes: The Weinstein Co. Books ‘Suite … 
BBC Confirms ‘Doctor Who’ Season 8 
Finally, Cannes Dealing! Radius-TWC Nabs Director’s … 
Hammond On Cannes: Wet Fest’s Official Competition … 
‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, … 
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn … 
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers 
California’s lack of strong tax incentives is killing TV production in Los Angeles said FilmL.A. today. “For many years, we’ve relied on Television to backfill the hole left by the flight of feature film production from the L.A. region. Television has been our bread and butter, but with Sacramento’s inaction to stem our losses, other states and countries are eating off our plate,” claims the non-profit permitting group’s president Paul Audley. The statement came as the organization released a mixed second quarter report Tuesday. It also comes less than a week after the $100 million annual state incentive inched its way towards a two year extension in the Legislature. Off lot television production days in Los Angeles were down 15.4% this quarter, FilmL.A found. Last quarter the drop was 9%. The biggest drop was among Drama, which was down 39.2% from last year to 581 days, and Reality, which fell 16.8% from the same quarter last year to 1,461 days. At the same time the organization also says that production for Sitcoms was up 35.6% and TV pilots were up 36.8% to 253 days. The latter in no small part thanks to a late start to pilot season this year. Features were also actually up 9.1% for the quarter and commercials were up an impressive 28.1%. Of course, as indicative as those numbers appear, they have to be put into context. FilmL.A. does not count production done on soundstages for which no permits are required. In general, FilmL.A. says that overall on-location production took a dip of 0.4% from the same quarter last year.
RELATED: ‘Body of Proof’ & ‘Justified’ Among Productions That Won California’s $100M Tax Credit
Deadline's Dominic Patten - tip him here.
Loading ...
Paul Audley’s quote is the most delicious analogy of all time.
Isnt there an economic model they can run to determine what will be the most profitable? I mean they have decades of data
Features are the most profitable. Is that what you mean?
What no one seems to ever talk about in addition to the lack of incentives in this state is the absolute hell that FilmLA puts a producer through. Out of many years in the business, I have made only two movies in LA and both were the toughest shoots I’ve ever encountered solely due to FilmLA.
The FilmLA monitors were completely inept and on top of that they all had tremendous egos and consequently cost me alot of money. I am happy to report I haven’t shot in LA in many years and not give these people one dime of my budget.
My movies and TV series will always shoot in subsidy states and countries. FilmLA and The mayor are completely against film production even though they’ll pay lip service and say they are not.
They’re absolutely moronic. FilmLA is one of the reasons I try to film in Burbank, if I can help it. I mean, they don’t even validate your PARKING. Every other company in that building does, but not FilmLA. Seriously, they could at least attempt to seem reasonable.
So FilmLA is the reason you wont shoot in LA, based on a nonspecific rant. But you will ONLY shoot in a subsidy state?? Seems like getting free money is the main issue.
no read my post more specifically. It is the combination of Film LA and the Mayor and the fact that they not only make it extremely hard to film in LA but THEY DO NOT WANT PRODUCTION HERE. Their actions speak louder than their words.
And yes, duh, I’m going to shoot where we get money and that means tax credits and rebates. Clearly only the lucky two get it in California. Louisiana, Michigan and New Mexico have great incentives for everyone and a terrific crew base
FilmLA only gets funded by permit fees. I am certain they want you to film here. Again, lack of a single specific example of what they did wrong is offset with idiotic hyperbole. Of course you need a government handout to make your projects. Duh, you’re a tool. Xoxo
“LA Based Producer who never shoot in LA” will not use his real name? Well there’s my name and I can tell you as the CoProducer/UPM on “Criminal Minds” beginning our 8th Season shooting in Los Angeles the FilmLA folks have been nothing but great to us in the last 7 seasons. Granted sometimes there are restrictions that have to be adhered to but so what, without restrictions it would be the Wild wild west out here. The permit office, the people that are sent out to our locations have been nothing less than professional and always willing to go the extra mile to help us when dealing with public problems. I for one am glad to be shooting in Los Angeles and funneling millions of dollars back into our local economy.
I’ve personally benefited from a subsidy in a state outside of California.
I just think it’s extremely unfair to provide subsidies for filmmakers that aren’t available to, say, restaurant owners or concert promoters. I don’t see why, from a state tax department’s point of view, it should matter whether a business is making a film, making computers or making alarm clocks. Companies in all legal industries ought to be subject to similar tax rules.
But I also have seen how a local film agency can scare filmmakers away from a city. One huge problem is that some film agencies have rules developed to suit projects with $1 million or $10 million budgets. Those rules may be absurdly unsuitable for micro-budget indie films.
Example (I’m fictionalizing slightly to conceal identities): one film I know about had a total production and post-production budget of $200,000. It was a really small film. But the city where it was located officially required the filmmakers to have three off-duty police officers on the set at all times. The city probably would have liked the filmmakers to promote the city as a film location, but the filmmakers are afraid of mentioning where they shot the film, because they fudged the three-officer-on-the-set rule.
I work at FilmL.A., and have for many years. I regret that you had a disappointing experience working in Los Angeles, and that you attribute your experiences solely to our office. Since you have not filmed in the area in many years, you may or may not be aware that both the City of Los Angeles and FilmL.A. have gone through many changes over the last decade, resulting in many improvements to the local filming environment. I can assure you that FilmL.A. is not in the business of paying lip service to film-friendliness while conspiring to make life difficult for local filmmakers; in our work we have the interests of both filmmakers and local communities to consider, but ours is a mission we take very seriously.
I’d love to go over the specifics of your past experiences with us and collect a few ideas for improvement. If you’re amenable, shoot me an email at psokoloski[at]filmla.com and we’ll set up some phone time to discuss.
nice try, but I worked in LA two years ago, and that’s when the majority of the horrendous experience with both Film LA and the city occurred. When I say I haven’t worked for many years in LA, I meant to say before that time (e.g. 2 years ago) and will never again. For me, Louisiana, New Mexico and Vancouver are a far far better place to shoot than LA and the fact is, they really want film production and Film LA does not. Regardless, I will email you more specifics.
Taxes aren’t the problem!
60 years of seeing the same places over & over again are the problem.
If the show is set in NYC, it needs to be in NYC.
And the same holds for Chicago, Philly, San Francisco, etc.
Viewers want variety, in addition to good shows.
Everything shot in LA looks like it was shot in LA, especially when the same locations without palm trees are used for outdoor scenes.
Or even worse, when there are mountains in the background if the show is set in NYC or Chicago!
Sure Becca, the dozens of movie shooting in Louisiana has nothing to do with a 30% subsidy on the budget and everything to do with diverse locations. So true.
Why is it that predominantly liberal Hollywood only recognizes how high taxes hurt business when it pertains to shooting films and television and not every other business?
Geoff, it’s because it hurts THEM financially. If you run a store in Orange County or the Central Valley the libs couldn’t care less what happens to you – so long as you pay your taxes on time!
Aside from that, isn’t it interesting that Brown, who Hollywood turned out in droves for, is deaf to runaway production. Arnold got it and helped all he could. But the Democrats have controlled the legislature for 50 years and California is withering away from north to south.
Agree with “LA Based producer”. The logistics hurdles of shooting in L.A. are pretty terrible. The bureaucratic hurdles here just aren’t competive with other locations.
Los Angeles does not need film production. It makes enough revenue from parking tickets. /end sarcasm.
Becca, I guess you’re unfamiliar with the current state of technology in the business — virtual backlot techniques allow a show shot in LA to look like anywhere in the world more cost effectively than leaving the lot. But yesterday’s “Runaway Production” has turned into today’s Ranaway Production. The best crews and support staff in the film and television world live right here in LA but we allow the studios to outsource it all because politicians think tax credits just make rich people richer. No, tax credits keep the best crews and support people employed.
But I think one challenge that filmmakers and TV crews working in Los Angeles face is that they have a set, slick way of doing things and, if they’re not careful, tend to end up with productions that look a little plastic.
The REEL problem is, no state or county should be in the business of subsidizing an industry that is richer now, than in it’s entire history. We’ll giving our tax dollars to the billionaires?
States and counties benefit from permanent industry, what they used to call good factory jobs. Today’s TV shows are made by “fronts”, dummy companies that are financed and controlled by the majors. HOLLYWOOD always pleads poverty in TV production, oh the costs and the headaches!
The HOLLYWOOD union workforce is living on 2% pay “raises” with 11% real inflation, whilst the elite executives are making millions,and hiding it offshore. If Rupert Murdoch and his like, paid some taxes once in a while, and if the super-agents didn’t have complete control over what gets made in the first place, then maybe filming in LA, will be more productive for everyone!
Tell the people at Star Waggons, Roger George Rentals, New Deal Studios or any of they people working the mills at one of the studios that they don’t have manufacturing jobs in a permanent industry. An llc is always set up during production. It’s just how it is done.
LA has a great talent and crew base. But as pointed out in the earlier posts there are more logistical and bureaucrat problems here in LA than elsewhere. And yes the tax credits and rebates offered by other states and countries are important factures as well.
We all try to make the best picture we can but it is a business. If the credits and rebates allow us to put more on the screen or allow us to reduce the budget in order to get a “go”, they do play a very big facture in deciding where to shoot.
In addition to the bureaucracy and lack of tax incentives, please include Unions into this trifecta of production unfriendliness. Unions have squeezed every last dime of potential profit out of this business. THe burden of saving California production should not sit on the shoulders of the State Government and the public alone. If you want business growth, then you have to be friendly to business in every way possible. WIthout them, no one pays your benefits.
Anyone who thinks its a trifecta of reasons causing productions to leave is kidding themselves. If regulations and unions were so onerous in California, production would have shifted to places like Louisiana long before they enacted incentives. The incentives, which subsidize 30% of the budget in Louisiana, are the ONLY reason people go there. It’s all about the free money, nothing else even comes close.
It’s very disappointing how much money the state of California is letting California businesses (the studios) spend on creating jobs in other states.
“Project Labor Agreement” then no supporting of tax incentives
Are your union earned tax dollars supporting tax incentives going to the non union sector?
Are union leaders and politicians enjoying a very large paycheck from dues paying members while supporting “Corporate Greed”?
Such union leaders and politicians are only undermining the very fiber of the union foundation, and that is “promoting unionism and the right of every union member an opportunity to fairly seek employment with union wages and conditions”.
I am truly amazed that any union leader would support any tax incentives for the non union sector while not supporting or having the basic understanding of how such actions without a “Project Labor Agreement” would not benefit its own membership, now or in the future.
So many of our union leaders and politicians don’t even grasp that we are the 99% and we demand the basic rights and concepts of a union to be upheld.
When management says this is good for you and your membership, are our leaders so naive that they believe that?
Are our leaders and politicians so naive that they do not see a win, win situation right in front of them?
While I do not personally support tax incentives, I would entertain a “Project Labor Agreement” for one.
Please write, fax, call and email your legislators and tell them: “Project Labor Agreement” or No Tax Incentives.
What is your opinion?
In Solidarity
~ Gary Watts ~
member of I.B.T. Local 399
People really make comments on this story built around “the libs”? Childish to be sure. Anyway, up here in Vancouver we’re humming right along even though there’s always stories about the bottom dropping out. Happy 4th of July. It’ll get better. Solidarity!
One of the sadder byproducts of incentive states offering better deals than California is the exodus of crew and actors to those states as their primary residence. Louisiana is filled with people who couldn’t find enough work in Los Angeles and moved there to work more.
But its important to look at both sides of this problem. California cannot offer incentives to every production like the rebate states can because we still have billions of dollars of production still shooting here. If California offered the same incentive program that Louisiana does the state would lose much more money than they do through runaway production. It’s a catch 22.
The production companies do whatever is necessary to lower budgets in this economy.
Maybe, and I know there will be a backlash against this, we should look at the fact that the big stars earn more on a movie than the entire crew combined. A $15 million dollar actor fee is greater than the sum of everyone else on most films and that’s before profit participation and residuals kicks in. Is it fair that tom Cruise gets to make upwards of $30 or 40 million dollars when people are having to sell their homes and move to Baton Rouge to keep their families fed?
Unions aren’t the problem with loss of film work in L.A., it’s the other state’s tax incentives. Case in point, New York City, which had many dramatic pilots shot there this year, with several picked up and soon to go into production. The rates there are much higher than those in Los Angeles, but that’s not stopping the work from being done. New York has a better and longer term tax incentive program, that’s what makes the difference. I worked on four pilots this year, and earned 30 to 40% more for my east coast work than I do here in L.A. TV producers on L.A. Productions always push us into the lowest rates they can legally pay for pilots and first year productions as well as limit overtime hours worked and paid for even if the project’s needs require it. The only real solution to our problems here is a more competitive tax incentive program, without that things will continue to get worse for the L.A. Film and TV production community. In the past year I’ve had to go work on location 3/4 of the time and would guess that will become all of the time if there’s no change coming from Sacremento.
I don’t understand any of this.
The liberals keep insisting that more taxes and more regulation will result in a better economy.
So why are film productions going elsewhere ?
It just doesn’t make sense.
They go elsewhere because other states and nations are subsidizing the budget. It’s not about lower taxes in these other places, it’s about getting a huge amount of the project paid for with free taxpayer money that is not theirs (the producers). It’s stupid for these states to offer the free money, but it would also be stupid not take advantage of it. Why pay $100 million to make a movie in California when Louisiana will pay for $30 million if you make it there (meaning you are only out of pocket $70 million)?
It’s not stupid- film/tv productions come to a State, stay in hotels, eat food, hire local crews and money pours into the local economy that offsets the tax credits and then some.
Typical idiot liberal.
“Typical idiot liberal”??
Where did you get the idea that it was a liberal issue. I’ve been beating the tax incentive drum for years now as both a television producer and executive/business operator and nobody has wanted to listen. And I’m quite liberal, just not an idiot who ascribes to any one view because it happens to be the view of a RePorklican or Spendocrat in political power.
“Is it fair that tom Cruise gets to make upwards of $30 or 40 million dollars when people are having to sell their homes and move to Baton Rouge to keep their families fed?”
—————
Yes it is fair since TC usually sells hundreds of millions of dollars of movie tickets and DVD’s and makes his employer and the companies in the film production chain money.
Studios want to make money and hire talent that can sell movie tickets. Tom Cruise, Will Smith, Ben Stiller, Julia Roberts, etc., get phone calls offering tons of cash to star in films since they can sell movie tickets. On the other hand, the Lindsay Lohan’s of the world are busy at nightclubs and probation hearings.
It is a point that has been made ad nauseam here but the hypocrisy of those in Hollywood is truly breathtaking. California has so much going for it but it seems that money-grubbing, hypocritical studio heads and selfish and idiotic unions are dragging the state down.
Taco Bell is correct, big stars usually drive big revenues, but not always (can you say Rock Of Ages). But that doesn’t mean that all those revenues trickle down to the people we are talking about, the crews that make these movies. These revenues are by and large kept by the studios and their shareholders. The discussion here is how to get those revenues to stay in California.
How do you propose for that to happen Mr. Bell?
So which shows whose pilots were filmed out of state will have started production in Los Angeles?
It is too difficult to shoot in LA and the environs . The paper work and the location problems are beyond belief. After the Fire department permits and the rental police who are first in line for lunch and don’t stop the guy with the leaf-blower, you are lucky if you can make a circus move. And parking, Oy Vey!!!